Institutional Entrepreneurs and the
Bricolage of Intellectual Property
Discourses
Ann Westenholz
Department of Organization and Industrial Sociology, Copenhagen
Business School, Kilevej 14, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark.
([email protected])
Abstract. Commercial software firms are increasingly becoming involved
with open source communities. In this research-in-progress paper I briefly
analysed a single firm case that demonstrates how an institutional entrepreneur
mixes in an innovative way different discourses in an attempt to legitimise a
new mode for developing software applying both open and closed source codes.
The institutional entrepreneur does this by creating new distinctions in his daily
software developing work. I am not arguing that the institutional entrepreneur is
creating these new distinctions in an instrumental rational process, but that the
distinctions emerge in sensemaking processes along his 'doing' something in
the firm.
1 Introduction
In the paper I focus on how intellectual property rights develop within software
development that involves both business firms and open-source communities, and on
the role of institutional entrepreneurs in this development. The basic assumption is
that the parties involved are embedded in different institutional logics concerning the
understanding of the nature of intellectual property right, implying their different
perceptions of and practices for knowledge sharing and organizing product
development. What are the stories about intellectual property rights emerging from
this interface? And what role does the institutional entrepreneur play in this
development?
The issue is attempted elucidated from the perspective of New Institutional
Organization theory (DiMaggio and Powel, 1983 ; Meyer and Rowen, 1983; Scott,
1995) and concerns how institutions change - in casu 'intellectual property right'. In
the 1970s and 1980s New Institutional theory represented a novel perspective within
organization theory compared to the rational one by singling out institutions as
independent variables that could explain organizational behaviour. However, by
understanding institutions as independent variables New Institutional theory became
unable to explain organizational change. A number of researchers have since
attempted to develop a New Institutional theory capable of explaining organizational
change as the outcome of the role that institutional entrepreneurs play in the
development (Borum and Westenholz, 1995; Boxenbaum and Battilana, 2004; Brint
and Karabel, 1991; Christensen and Westenholz, 1997; DiMaggio, 1988; Fligstein,
1997; Friedland and Alford, 1991; Greenwood and Hinings, 2002,; Oliver, 1991;
Please use the following format when citing this chapter:
Westenholz, A., 2006, in IFIP International Federation for Information Processing,
Volume 203, Open Source Systems, eds. Damiani, E., Fitzgerald, B., Scacchi, W., Scotto,
M., Succi, G., (Boston: Springer), pp. 183-193
184
Ann Westenholz
Scott, 1995; Seo and Creed, 2002; Tolbert and Zucker, 1983). In the paper, I elaborate
these ideas by combining the theory of institutional entrepreneurs with discourse
theory. (Collinson, 1988 1992; Gabriel, Handy and Phillips, 2004; Graesser,
Gemsbacher and Goldman, 2003; Grant, Hardy, Oswick and Putnam, 2004ba and b;
Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002; Wetherell, Taylor and Yates, 2001).
In the paper I draw on a project-in-progress\ and the paper is thus a first step
toward elucidating the issue. Section 2 of the paper describes a single case in which a
business firm uses open-source. Section 3 describes the historical-social context of the
case, and section 4 accounts for the theories underlying the analysis. In section 5 I
analyze the case and conclude in section 6.
2 The case
John is about forty years old, and worked in the media world in the past. In the mid1990s he started a Danish IT firm. In 2000, he wanted to publish a product he had
developed as an open-source programme, in order to disseminate it and encourage
others to elaborate on it. John had learned about open source from a programmer with
whom he had collaborated. He was attracted by the idea because, as he says: 'It makes
knowledge sharing possible. I think that what we are doing is universal, and should be
accessible for all applications involving our product. Therefore it made sense to
involve people working with similar problems in the development of the basic
functions. Based on these functions, tailor-made solutions could be developed for
various customers.'
During 2000, John became increasingly burdened with debts that required him to
find venture capital. Although he succeeded in attracting capital, the venture
capitalists would not accept open source as part of their business recipe. John was
sacked, and in early 2001 found himself without a firm.
John mortgaged his flat and hired three employees who have developed a new
model from scratch. As their point of departure, they downloaded an open programme
from the Internet, further developed it, and subsequently uploaded the elaborated
version, making it available for others. In further developing the programme, they
collaborated with IT programmers who formally worked in other places, while
simultaneously working openly on the Internet. As John says: 'To resolve problems at
the same speed as was possible via the Internet would require several hundred
employees. Many of the problems concern very specific issues, and when we inquire
on the Internet it is rarely more than 24 hours before we have one or several
responses.'
But even as John's employees draw their knowledge from the Internet, others have
started to ask them questions via the Internet. If the questions concern issues that do
not interest them but are easily resolved, they respond. As one of John's employees
^ The name of the project is Institutional Entrepreneurs and it is financed by the Danish Social
Research Council 2005-2009. Homepage: www.IICO.dk
Institutional Entrepreneurs and the Bricolage of Intellectual Property Discourses
185
says, 'It's cool being able to produce something that others can use and to help some
of the guys in the USA that you admire: Just do so and so.' Being able to respond to
questions gives people status in the open-source community. But as John says: 'We
don't spend a week correcting errors for somebody in the USA if it isn't something
that we can use.'
John's firm makes money by adapting the product to the specific needs of specific
customers. If Microsoft had developed the product, similar adaptations to customer
needs would be required. The difference is that had Microsoft developed the product,
the customer would have to pay a start fee, which is not the case when the product is
available as an open-source programme. The advantage for John's firm is, however,
that having developed the product, it occupies the cutting edge. It will take some time
before others become equally adept at adapting it to customer specific needs. But it
also means that the firm must compete for producing the best quality rather than
dominating the market, leaving customers with few other options.
John says that his firm rests on 'a reverse line of thought in relation to traditional
economy and business strategy: 'It has taken a long time and we have been subject to
great ridicule, but it has been fun to see that the customers now realise the great
advantage of our approach. They have started to demand open-source products. The
concept suddenly starts to spread - and quickly now.'
Sometimes the firm is also involved in the development of closed-systems
products, as when the firm collaborates with hardware producers who are working
with closed codes. But the closure is immaterial, according to John, because the
product cannot be used in other contexts. 'It's fine. There are situations in which it is
better to produce your own things and keep them as a business secrets, particularly if
it concerns an area.' Nevertheless he admits that other programmers may be able to
transfer the codes to other situations, but the company with which John collaborate
will not concede to openness for the product. He has accepted this condition, because
'It's worth more to us to produce this for 'CLOSED-SYS' under the conditions which
they stipulate. Then we can work for others in the way we prefer. So in the case of
'CLOSED-SYS', we work with a closed system.' John estimates that about 10% of
the firm's jobs involve working with closed codes, and he does not expect this share
to change to any appreciable extent.
(The data for this case description was gathered in 2002)
3 The historical social context of the case
The case about John and his firm is the story about how different institutional logics
governing open and closed codes respectively meet and mix - an issue of different
understandings of 'property rights to intellectual work'. The story is far from an
isolated occurrence, and today we observe many different ways of mixing the two
logics in the production of software. In Denmark, for instance, various interest
organisations/groups have emerged over the last two years that work for the
186
Ann Westenholz
dissemination of open source commercial suppliers and producers. And the
phenomenon is far from local, but a global one.
In order to understand this development it might be fruitful to look into what has
happened with the concept of 'property' over the last decades. Traditionally the
concept of property embraces a number of rights that in various ways are allocated to
individuals, groups or society. In the capitalist production the concept of property is
tied to firms and embedded in a conception of the right of private owners to manage
the firm, yield profit, and wind up/transfer/sell the firm to others. In western societies
the prevailing assumption has been that combined these three rights were related to
the efficiency of the firm (Lindkvist and Westenholz, 1987). Concurrently with
production being transformed from material production to the production of
intellectual work (innovations, ideas, knowledge, information, symbols, expressive
manifestations, images, music, etc., detached from specific physical objects) the
intellectual property right has attracted growing attention in society, and some
researchers argue that intellectual property rights require a specific justification. The
reason is, among other things, that non-physical phenomena like intellectual work are
not immediately reduced from being shared with and used by many people such as
physical phenomena are reduced by being shared with or used by others besides the
owner. (Barlow, 2002; Coleman and Hill, 2005; Cornish, 2004; Davis, 2004a;
Rivette and Kline, 2000; Stahl, 2005; Thierer and Crews, 2002; Wright, 1979).
One of the most characteristic sectors in society that has placed the discussion of
intellectual property rights on the agenda in recent years is that of software
development within the hacker-culture^ related to the communities 'Free Software'
and 'Open Source' and the concept of 'copyleft'. (Davis, 2004 b; DiBona, Ockman
and Stone, 1999; Kaisla, 2001; Laurent, 2004; Moody, 2002; Pavlicek, 2000;
Raymond, 1999; Rosen, 2005; Stahl, 2005; Torvads, 2001; Wark, 2004; Weber, 2004;
Williams, 2002). Within private software firms many saw the hackers as a kind of
communist movement, but the boundary between private business and the hacker
community was surprisingly transgressed by the end of the 1990s. Among other
things the privately owned Netscape announced that it would publish its source codes
on the Internet and thus make the codes accessible to the public. This triggered a
process through which managers and hackers developed a marketing strategy aiming
at making private firms interested in the working methods of hackers. Previous ethical
imperatives were shelved in exchange for a more instrumental concept that would be
easier to understand for private business firms. Among other things the concept
introduced the possibility of privatising software modifications and demand payment
for their applications. The concept 'free software' was exchanged for 'open source',
and a growing number of private firms have started using Open Source over the last
five-six years. (DiBona, Ockman and Stone, 1999; Fink, 2003; Hippel and Krogh,
^ The term 'hacker' is applied here in the same way as the hacker-community does: a hacker is
an enthusiastic, often highly intelligent person who develops IT software in collaboration
with other hackers across universities andfirms.Thus, a hacker is not someone involved in
criminal acts and hacking into others' computers.
Institutional Entrepreneurs and the Bricolage of Intellectual Property Discourses
187
2003; Hoick, Larsen and Pedersen, 2004; J0rgensen, 1999; Kaisla,2001; Koch, 2005;
Larsen, Hoick and Pedersen, 2004; Pavlicek; 2000, Raymond, 2001; Weber, 2004).
4 Theoretical background
In recent years different perspectives have been applied to studying the right to
intellectual work, such as an issue of moral/philosophy, of economic theory, of law
and of organisational sociology. The present research -in-progress paper will apply
the latter approach, with a focus on the theory of new-institutional organisational
sociology that investigates how the social construction of intellectual property unfolds
in the meeting between business firms and voluntary communities.
New-institutional theory focuses in particular on cognitive institutions - that is
internalised symbolic images of reality - and less on regulative and normative
institutions. (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Friedland and Alford 1991, Meyer and
Rowen, 1983; Scott, 1991; Scott, 1995). The theory, which was developed in the late
1970s and 1980s, understands cognitive institutions as independent variables, which
implies "a turn toward cognition and cultural explanations and an interest in
properties of supra-individual units of analysis that cannot be reduced to aggregations
or direct consequences of individuals' attributes or motives" (DiMaggio and Powell,
1991). This understanding of cognitive institutions as independent variables has
subsequently been subject to severe criticism as it made it unsuitable for explaining
institutional changes. A number of researchers have attempted resolving this problem
by introducing an 'actor' as independent variable. They have thus gone back to where
the new-institutional theory started its criticism: that individuals have motives and
attitudes that, under certain circumstances, contribute to explain institutional changes.
(Brint and Karabel, 1991; DiMaggio, 1988; Oliver, 1991; Scott, 1995; Tolbert and
Zucker, 1983). Other researchers have attempted solving the problem - not by going
back to individual motives and attitudes as the explanatory power of institutional
changes - but by further developing new-institutional theory by adding to it a
phenomenon called institutional entrepreneurs. Institutional entrepreneurs are
socially constructed actors of social capabilities to motivate others to collaborate by
bringing about in social practices characterised by multiple institutional logics a
shared sense making and identity. These logics constitute the organising principles
and they are accessible to organisations and individuals interested in further
developing micro processes through which the parties make sense of what has
happened, what is happening, and what is going to happen. (Borum and Westenholz,
1995; Boxenbaum and Battilana, 2004; Christensen and Westenholz, 1997; Fligstein,
1997; Friedland and Alford, 1991; Greenwood and Hinings, 2002; Seo and Creed,
2002). The theory of institutional entrepreneurs is currently in the process of being
developed, and the project wishes to contribute to further develop this phenomenon
focusing on the explanatory power of institutional entrepreneurs in relation to the
emergence of intellectual property.
188
Ann Westenholz
In further developing the phenomenon 'institutional entrepreneurs' I shall argue
for the fertility of combining new-institutional organisational theory and
organisational discourse theory. (Graesser, Gemsbacher and Goldman, 2003; Grant,
Hardy, Oswick and Putnam, 2004ba; Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002; Wetherell, Taylor
and Yates, 2001). Organisational discourse theory refers to the structural collection of
texts embedded in practice when talking and writing (in casu about intellectual
property). The assumption is that discursive practice not only describes things, but
also 'do' them in that the discourse brings life to the phenomena by categorising and
combining them in ways that make sense in an otherwise meaningless reality. Within
the realm of discursive theory it is methodologically relevant to distinguish between
'discourses-in-use' and 'discourses-in-context'. (Grant, Hardy, Oswick and Putnam,
2004 b). The latter concept 'discourses-in-context' is not alien to new-institutional
concepts such as cognitive institutions/institutional logics as institutional contexts are
used for understanding the formation of language. (Grant, Hardy, Oswick and
Putnam, 2004 b). By supplementing new-institutional organisational theory with
'discourses-in-context' analyses it becomes possible to elucidate the way in which
institutions prevail in everyday discourses. This will balance and concretise newinstitutional organisational theory, but it will not bring the theory further in the
analyses of institutional changes. For this purpose the approach of'discourses-in-use'
is applicable in that it focuses on interaction in micro processes through which
discourses are attempted authorised through, and counter-discourses are produced to
escape authorisations. (CoUinson, 1988 1992, Gabriel, Handy and Phillips, 2004).
5 And back to the case and the social context
Looking at the historical development in which John's firm is embedded, several
discourses-in-context' concerning the right to intellectual work are emerging within
software development. Each of these discourses points towards heroes and villains in
the development. This has been analyzed by, among others, Szczepanska, Bergquist
6 Ljungberg (2005) who identifies a 'hacker discourse' developed within various
software developing movements and communities. In the discourse a 'hacker' appears
who in most cases is. characterized as the creative and genuinely interested
troubleshooter developer - a character or an identity that marks a difference between
'us' and 'the others'. In the 1990s the hacker-discourse split into two as a result of
arguments over how to approach and to organize software development. One of the
discourses, the 'free-software-discourse', strongly emphasizes the ideological aspects
of the freedom to hack and to get and use information, whereas the other one, the
'open-source-discourse' attaches less importance to the ideological aspects of
freedom and more to the concrete product developed by using open codes. Both
discourses share the ambition to produce free software of high quality, but the
differences between the discourses are sufficient to identify two stories about
'hackers' each of which is closed around an 'us' and sees the others as - 'the others'.
Nevertheless both stories share a mutual enemy represented by Microsoft which is
characterized as the 'evil empire' as opposed to hackers, who like to see themselves
Institutional Entrepreneurs and the Bricolage of Intellectual Property Discourses
189
as romantic rebels. Microsoft has responded by developing its own 'proprietariandiscourse' that tells a story about not only the necessity of firms protecting their
codes, but also about the importance of firms possessing the property right to
intellectual work in order to secure society innovation. In this story the hackers are
identified as the villains comparable to communists and anti-American behavior. As
Szezepanska and others stress it is interesting that all three discourses claim to
support 'the American way' in their attempts to legitimize their own discourse in the
societal arena.
Turning to John and his firm we can now see that John operates as an institutional
entrepreneur. John operates at the firm level, and in his local context he draws on the
open-source-discourse and the proprietarian-discourses. The nature of his
entrepreneurship is not to (further) develop one of the two discourses as e.g. Stallman,
Raymond and Gates have done, but to mix them in his daily practice in the firm.
Mixing the discourses requires that John renders them legitimate, enabling him to live
with himself and persuade his employees and other partners of collaboration to accept
the mix. For this purpose he applies two techniques: First of all he develops a
distinction between 'universal themes' and 'specific themes' in software
development. When developing 'universal themes' one should keep one's hacker
identity whereas it is fine to work in closed codes if the theme is specific and cannot
be used by others anyhow - according to John's arguments. Second, he develops a
pragmatic/instrumental attitude toward working with closed codes for CLOSE-SYS
arguing that it creates the financial possibility for working with open codes, which is
what he prefers - his substantive values. In the terminology of March and Olsen
(1989:23) John applies a logic of consequentiality working together with CLOSESYS and logic of appropriateness when he is working with open codes. Both logics
seem to havefiinctionedin his daily practice.
6 Conclusion
I have briefly analysed a single firm case that demonstrates how an entrepreneur
brings into an organizafional IT field an open-source-discourse-in-use, a field in
which the nature of the dominant discourse-in-context and discourse-in-use are
properietarian. This CQUSQS problems of legitimacy f6r the entrepreneur, and he fails in
his attempt to procure from the organizational field the necessary resources for
developing and continuing the company; he is unable to render the open-source
concept legitimate. Financially he only survives by selling his apartment for
contributing to the assets of the company. At this point in the process the entrepreneur
sticks to his open-source and does not assume the character of an institutional
entrepreneur. Only late in the process does he 'assume character' as an institutional
entrepreneur by mixing in an innovative way different discourses in an attempt to
legitimise a new mode for developing software applying both open and closed source
codes. He does this by creating new distinctions in the discourse-in-use applied in his
daily software developing work (universal versus specific themes; and instrumental
190
Ann Westenholz
versus substantive values). I am not arguing that the institutional entrepreneur is
creating these new distinctions in an instrumental rational process, but that the
distinctions emerge in sensemaking processes along his 'doing' something in this
firm.
In the further study it would be interesting to:
• identify other discourses-in-context and discourses-in-use within software
development,
• identify other ways of mixing (other) discourses in the daily software
development and analyse how these are established as discourses-in-use,
• analyse whether and how new/mixed discourses are disseminated in the field
of software development. Here it would be relevant to incorporate different
analyfical units as institutional entrepreneurs (e.g. individuals, firms,
communities), and different analytical levels (global level, nationally level,
organizational level, and the level of concrete projects).
References
Barlow, John P. (2002) Intellectual Property , Informational Age. In: Thierer, Adam
and Clyde Wayne Crews Jr. (eds.) Copy Flights - The future of intellectual
property in the information age. Washington, D.C.: CATO Institute
Borum, Finn and Ann Westenholz (1995) The incorporation of Multiple Institutional
Models - Organizational Field Multiplicity and the Role of the Actor. In: W.
Richard Scott and Soren Christensen (eds.) The Institutional Construction of
Organizations - International and Longitudinal Studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publ.
Boxenbaum, Eva, and Julie Battilana (2004) The Innovative Capacity of Institutional
Entrepreneurs - A Reconstruction of Corporate Social Responsibility. Academy
of Management Annual Conference. New Orleans, August 6-11, 2004
Brint, S. and Karabel, J. (1991) Institutional Origins and Transformations: The Case
of American Community Colleges. In Powell, W.W. and P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.)
The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Pp. 337-360
Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Christensen, Soren and Ann Westenholz (1997) The social/behavioural construction
of employee as strategic actors on company boards of directors. American
Behavioral Scientist: AO'.A
Coleman, and Hill (2005) The Social Production of Ethics in Debian and Free
Software Communities: Anthropological Lessons for Vocational Ethics.In:
Koch, Stefan ed. Free/open Source Software Development. Hershey: IDEA
group Publishing
Collinson, D. (1988) 'Engineering humor': Masculinity, joking and conflict in shopfloor relafions. Organization Studies, 9: 181-99
Collinson, D. (1992) Managing the shop floor: Subjectivity, masculinity, and
workplace culture. New York: De Gruyter
Institutional Entrepreneurs and the Bricolage of Intellectual Property Discourses
191
Cornish, William (2004) Intellectual Property - Omnipresent, Distracting,
Irrelevant? Oxford: Oxford University Press
Davis, Lee (2004 a)Intellectual property rights, strategy and policy. Economics of
Innovation and New Thechnology, 13(5):399-415
Davis, Lee (2004 b) Levaranging copyrights to appropriate profits in the nes
'information' industries. Paper presented at the AHRB Copyright Research
Network Conference, London
DiBona, Chris, Sam Ockman and Mark Stone (eds.) (1999) Open Sources - Voices
from the Open Source Revolution. Beijing: O'Reilly
DiMaggio, P.J. (1988) Interest and Agency in Institutional Theory, in Zucker, L.G.
(ed.) Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment. Pp. 321. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983) The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional
Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American
Sociological Review, 48:147-160.
DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1991) Introduction. In Walter W. Powell and P.J.
DiMaggio (Eds.) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Theory. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Fink, Martin (2003) The Business and Economics of Linux and Open
iSowrce.Uppersaddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall PTR
Fligstein, Neil (1997) Social Skill and Institutional Theory. The American Behavioral
Scientist (40:4)
Friedland, R. and Alford, R.R. (1991) Bringing Society Back In: Symbols, Practices,
and Institutional Contradictions. In W.W. Powell and P.J. DiMaggio (Eds.) The
New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Pp. 232-263. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Gabriel, Yiannis (2004) Narratives, Stories and Text. In: Grant, David, Cynthia
Hardy, Cliff Oswick and Linda Putnam (eds.): The SAGE Handbook of
Organizational Discourse, London: Sage Publications
Graesser, Arthur C, Morton Ann Gernsbacher and Susan R. Goldman (2003)
Handbook of discourse processes. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Grant, David, Cynthia Hardy, Cliff Oswick and Linda Putnam (eds.) (2004a): The
SAGE Handbook of Organizational Discourse, London: Sage Publications
Grant, David, Cynthia Hardy, Cliff Oswick and Linda Putnam (2004b): Introduction:
Organizational Discourse: Exploring the Field. In: Grant, David, Cynthia Hardy,
Cliff Oswick and Linda Putnam (eds.) (2004): The SAGE Handbook of
Organizational Discourse, London: Sage Publications
Greenwood, Royston, Suddaby, Roy and C.R. Hinings (2002) Theorizing Change:
The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalised
fields. Academy of Management Journal:45,\
Hippel, Eric von and Georg von Krogh (2003) Open Source Software and the
'Private-Collective' Innovation Model: Issues for Organization Science.
Organizational Science vo. 14, no. 2: 209-223
Hoick, Jesper, Michael Holm Larsen and Mogens Kuhn Pedersen (2004) Identitying
Business Barriers and enablers for the adoption of open source software. ISD
192
Ann Westenholz
2004, Thirteenth International Conference on Information System Development
- Advances in Theory, Practice and Education. Vilnius, Lithuania, 9-11
September
Jorgensen, Marianne and Louise Phillips (2002) Discource analysis - as theory and
method. London: Sage Publ.
Jorgensen, Niels (1999) Giv det hele vcek! Handelshojskolen i Kobenhavn
Kaisla, Jukka (2001) Constitutional Dynamics of the Open Source Software
Development. Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy, CBS
Koch, Stefan ed. (2005) Free/open Source Software Development, Hershey: IDEA
group Publishing
Larsen, Michael Holm, Jesper Hoick and Mogens Kuhn Pedersen (2004) The
Challenges of Open Source Software in IT Adoption: Enterprise Architecture
versus Total Cost of Ownership. IRIS 2004, Information System Research in
Scandinavia, Falkenberg, Sverige, 14-17 August
Laurent, Andrew M. St. (2004) Open Source and Free Software Licensing. Beijing:
O'Reilly
Lindkvist, Lars och Ann Westenholz (red.) (1987) Medarbetardgde foretag I Norden
- Historisk Parentes eller framtida mojlighet? Nordisk Ministerrad, NU:1
March, James G. and Johan P. Olsen (1996) Institutional Perspectives on Political
Institutions. Governance: An International Journal of Policy and
Administration, Vol 9, No. 3: 247-264
Meyer, John W. and Brian Rowan (1983) Institutionalized Organizations: Formal
Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology (2)
Moody, Glun (2002) Rebel Code - Linux and the open source revolution. London:
Penguin Books
Oliver, Christine (1991) Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of
Management Review (18:1)
Pavlicek, Russell C. (2000) Embracing insanity - open source software development.
Indianapolis: Sams Publ.
Raymond, Eric, S. (1999) The Cathedral and the Bazaar - Musings on Linux and
Open Source by an accidental revolutionary.BQ\]mg: O'Reilly
Rivette, Kevin G. and D. Kline (2000) Discovering new value in intellectual
propQvty.HarvardBusiness Review: 54-66
Rosen, Lawrence (2005) Open Source Licensing - Software Freedom and Intellectual
Property Law, New Jersey: Pearson Professional Education
Scott, W. Richard (1991) Unpacking Institutional Arguments. In: Walter W. Powell
and Paul J. DiMaggio (eds.) The New Institutionalism in Organizational
Analysis. Chicago: the University, of Chicago Press
Scott, W. Richard (1995) Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publ.
Seo, Myeong-Gu and W.E. Douglas Creed (2002) Institutional Contradictions, Praxis,
and Institutional Change: A Dialectical Perspective. Academy of Management
Review. 27,2
Stahl (2005) 'The Impact of Open Source Development on the Social Construction of
Intellectual Property'. In: Koch, Stefan ed. Free/open Source Software
Development. Hershey: IDEA group Publishing
Institutional Entrepreneurs and the Bricolage of Intellectual Property Discourses
193
Szczepanska, A. M., Bergquist, M., & Ljungberg, J. (2005). High Noon at OS Corral:
Duels and Shoot-Outs in Open Source Discours. In: J. Feller, B. Fitzgerald., S.
A. Hissam, and K. R. Lakhani, eds. Perspectives on Free and Open Source
Software, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Thierer, Adam and Clyde Wayne Crews Jr. (eds.) (2002) Copy Flights - The future of
intellectual property in the information age. Washington, D.C.: CATO Institute
Tolbert, Pamela S. and Lynne G. Zucker (1983) Institutional Sources of Change in the
Formal Structure of Organizations: the Diffusion of Civil Service Reform, 18801935. Administrative Science Quarterly (28)
Torvalds, Linus {20Q\)Just for Fun - The story of an accidental revolutionary. New
York: Texere
Wark, McKenzie (2004) A Hacker Manifesto. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press
Weber, Steven (2004) The Succes of Open Source. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press
Wetherell, Margaret, Stephanie Taylor and Simeon J. Yates (2001) Discource theory
and practice - A reader Sage Publ.
Williams, Sam (2002) Free as in Freedom - Richard Stallman 's crusade for Free
Software. Beijing: O'Reilly